>From the minutes today:
<http://www.w3.org/2005/06/01-wai-wcag-minutes.html>
> bg: tech about using display:none and positioning to create invisible
> labels
>
> js: have issues with display:none
It's in the spec and people can use it.
> mc: also have issues with display:none; also it is a tech to work
> around WCAG GL's that people don't like
Three real-world examples, please?
> js: we need a sc for making text percievable, we are making a default
> assumption that text is accessible, which is not good [...]
> js: yeah, we need a guideline, that deals with the inacurate
> assumption about text being perceivable but I don't want to
> proliferate
> guideline
Now, can somebody tell me how text-- which the Working Group from time
immemorial has privileged over every other data type on the Web-- is
suddenly not perceivable? You've got guidelines coming out the wazoo
requiring us to write (using text) in an understandble way; use text
equivalents; and even use only a certain set of character encodings. The
Working Group is cuckoo for text. And suddenly it's deemed not
perceivable?
Is this a way of exaggerating obscure, rarely-seen edge cases--
like styling text with display: none or identical foreground and
background colours--
or is this yet another way of making the false claim that, since IE/Win
can't resize text in pixels nothing else can, hence text may never be
sized in pixels?
Perhaps proponents of this absurd idea could give us three real-world
examples. You have to demonstrate that there is an actual accessibility
impact on people with disabilities rather than the site's simply being not
your cup of tea.
--
Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
--This.
--What's wrong with top-posting?